Lutzoni City Territ Archit (2016) 3:20

DOI 10.1186/s40410-016-0046-9

RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access

In‑formalised urban space design.

Rethinking the relationship between formal
and informal
Laura Lutzoni*

Abstract 
This paper investigates the relationship between the formal and informal spheres of urban life and explores the
change in the relation between them. Starting with a study of the evolution and different interpretations of the spa-
tial concept of informality, we moved from a perspective based on the traditional dichotomies to concentrate on the
relations between formal and informal. In this intermediate space the presence of these two dimensions can sketch
out spheres of action and foster the emergence of different perspectives from an urban, cultural, social and eco-
nomic viewpoint. Urban informality challenges the formalisation of the current design and planning processes that,
based on abstract techniques and theories, create a system devoid of contact with reality. Informal urban processes
appear to be an important perspective from which to depart to reconfigure criteria and approaches linked with space
design. In this respect, urban design—thanks to its ability to intercept single and episodic phenomena, tendencies or
behaviours and steer them towards perspectives of change—is subject to a dual tension between the formal sphere
of knowledge and the need to analyse and endorse reality in its variety of informal aspects and forms. This approach
fosters the establishment of alternative points of view and brings forth a different awareness, strictly connected with
action, which can contribute to defining perspectives for the city.
Keywords:  Formality, Informality, Formal-informal relationship, Urban design, Borderlands, Intermediate space,
Urban perspectives

Background processes, which tend to be “formalised” to be subse-

Informal practices and urban processes
The current methods of reading, interpreting and design-
ing the city refer to the traditional formal instruments
of the discipline, picking out a series of parameters and
standards not always able to decode urban complex-
ity and describe reality that is detailed and changing,
that builds up, falls apart and reassembles itself rap-
idly. This happens because the formal character of the
usual systems of knowledge, analysis and design can be
traced back to a functionalist paradigm based on the idea
of a centralised, hierarchical control of the city. Firm,
comprehensive codes govern the knowledge of urban
*Correspondence: llutzoni@uniss.it
Department of Architecture, Design & Urban Planning, University
of Sassari, Palazzo del Pou Salit, Piazza, Duomo 6, Alghero, 07041 Sassari,
Italy
quently handled by space design. This practice, based on
formal models and abstract principles applicable to dif-
ferent situations, runs counter to the current tendencies
of the city, which is projected towards less formal, more
flexible spatial order, favouring the passage from a strate-
gic method towards an approach of the tactical type (De
Certeau 1984). In the book The Practice of Everyday Life,
De Certeau (1984) introduces the difference between
strategy and tactic: “I call a “strategy” the calculus of
force-relationships which becomes possible when a subject
of will and power can be isolated from an “environment”.
A strategy assumes a place that can be circumscribed as
proper and thus serve as the basis for generating relations
with an exterior distinct from it. Political, economic, and
scientific rationality has been constructed on this strategic
model. I call a “tactic”, on the other hand, a calculus which
cannot count on a “proper”, nor thus on a borderline

© The Author(s) 2016. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license,
and indicate if changes were made.
Lutzoni City Territ Archit (2016) 3:20
distinguishing the other as a visible totality. The place of
a tactic belongs to the other. A tactic insinuates itself into
the other’s place, fragmentarily, without taking it over in
its entirety, without being able to keep it at a distance. It
has at its disposal no base where it can capitalize on its
advantages, prepare its expansions, and secure independ-
ence with respect to circumstances” (De Certeau 1984, pp.
19–20). According to this view, urban complexity is ana-
lysed as the relation between spatial form and social, eco-
nomic and cultural processes.
In this context the traditional forms of the “static” city,
understood as a built, permanent environment, become
the background of the “kinetic” landscape (Mehrotra
2008, 2010) of an informal city that is temporary, can-
not be coded, and is in continuous movement. It is a case
of two worlds that co-exist on the same urban territory,
and public space becomes the place where they inter-
sect and enter into relations, giving rise to a single entity
(Mehrotra 2003). In contemporary urban landscapes
the kinetic city may be described as an entity made up
of mobile spatial forms, and is continuously changing.
Informal space takes shape over time occupying different
areas and its borders may expand to include the multi-
ple uses of the contemporary urban condition. The infor-
mal city, moving towards greater attention to the social
aspect, introduces a sense of place and greater aware-
ness of the contemporary world. Instability, indistinct-
ness, dynamism, mobility, temporariness, recyclability
and reversibility (Mehrotra 2008) are the fundamental
elements upon which this spatial concept becomes struc-
tured. The “static” city and the “kinetic” city can establish
a much more complex spatial and immaterial relation-
ship than their physical manifestation might suggest. This
relation defines a space—included between formal and
informal—that is fluid and ambiguous, characterised by
processes that are difficult to decode, map or subdivide
(Mehrotra 2008). Enclosing many phenomena and situa-
tions, interstitial space is a metaphor for a physical state
of the contemporary city and enables the conception of
urbanism as a foreseeable entity a priori to be surpassed.
This condition enables us to understand better the hazy
line between formal and informal, as well as the progres-
sive change in roles of people and spaces in the urban
society.
It is interesting to highlight the way each debate on
informal space begins with the description of processes
of marginality and with the identification of dichotomous
terms. Actually, the discussion should begin with alter-
native ways of framing themes as concepts of hybridity,
simultaneousness and coexistence. Hence, formal and
informal order may both be considered legitimate, simul-
taneous ways of “making the city” (Landry 2006).
Page 2 of 14
Informal dimensions of urban life
Informality and urban space
The term informality has taken on importance in the last
50 years, gaining different names, features and interpre-
tations over time. The complexity of this concept involves
many spheres; it is the term used to describe and theo-
rise on not just the spatial aspect of the city but also its
cultural, economic, social and political organisation
(Hernández et  al. 2010). Informality is often associated
with procedures and phenomena that take place outside
formal processes or planned and regulated zones (Roy
2005). A very wide range of situations may be included,
like spontaneous processes of occupation of the territory,
absence of property titles, self-building of houses, illegal
inhabiting in contexts with rapid urbanisation, temporary
uses of space, forms of self-organisation and develop-
ment of urban areas at city edges, etc.
The informality phenomenon has become a signifi-
cant element in urban growth and in the “production”
of the city (Lefebvre 1991). This concept became impor-
tant when the first city expansion plans began halfway
through the nineteenth century, and with the success of
a series of normative frameworks regulating urban devel-
opment and some practices considered ‘edge’ practices in
the past.
A considerable amount of research has tried to ana-
lyse the alternative methods of aggregation and sharing
public spaces within the city. In particular, the Chicago
school of urban sociology examined the development
and change in human behaviour brought on by the physi-
cal and social environment. In the essay Urbanism as a
Way of Life, Wirth (1938) maintained that while the city
is the “place of urbanism”, the urban way of life is no
longer confined to the physical entity. Urbanism is not
considered a process by which people are linked with a
place, but as the outcome of a wider system of relations
deriving from a few variables that determine the urban
condition as they interact with each other. These aspects
appear important also to understand the category of
urban informality.
The notion of informality became firmly established in
the debate on the city in the early 1960s, as an alterna-
tive to the functionalist urbanism proposed by the CIAM
(Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne). In the
60s, in particular, population growth and the rapid spread
of the first informal spatial forms coincided with the loss
of certainties regarding the paradigms of urbanism and
modern architecture.
Among the most significant avant-garde activity of the
early 60s we find the work and projects of the members
of Team X, an entity deliberately not structured, which
originated within the sphere of the latest CIAM meetings
Lutzoni City Territ Archit (2016) 3:20
with the aim of discussing and processing ideas and doc-
uments combined on architecture and urbanism. Team X
highlighted the importance of certain aspects neglected
by Modern Movement functionalism, like social require-
ments, spontaneousness, self-organisation and the open-
ing up of design to many future spatial possibilities. The
contribution of the architect Aldo Van Eyck was espe-
cially important: on the occasion of the 11th CIAM
held in 1959 (Otterlo, Holland), this member of Team X
exhibited a table depicting a plan of a pueblo settlement,
a population present at the border between Mexico and
the United States. The diagram, known by the name of
Otterlo Circles, referred to an informal settlement form
and showed how the inhabitants collectively inhabited
the space.
Focusing on informal knowledge of the territory led
Aldo Van Eyck to concentrate his research in the early
60s on the Dogon villages in Central West Africa to ana-
lyse the relation between social structures and built envi-
ronment. The most important aspect of these villages is
the resident population’s ability to give shape to a shared
landscape with which they satisfy collective needs, in the
absence of any type of regulation on space structuring.
These informal processes and evidence show a capacity
on the part of the inhabitants to establish a relationship
between territory, space and practices.
Aldo Van Eyck’s most important project connected
with the concept of informality is The City as Play-
ground. Between 1947 and 1978, the architect designed
a system of playgrounds, based on a representation of
the urban gaps in the city of Amsterdam. These interven-
tions were carried out on temporarily unused sites, but
their meaning goes beyond the creative solution of the
moment. First of all, the playground proposes a different
conception of space. Van Eyck designed an open space
that could be interpreted in different ways with the aim
of stimulating the users’ creativity. The second aspect
is the modular nature of the project: the basic elements
can be combined in different ways and depending on
the requirements of the local context. The third aspect is
the interactive relationship with the surrounding urban
fabric and the “interstitial” nature of the project, which
overthrows the urban system proposed by the CIAM
in favour of a bottom-up approach (Lefaivre et al. 2002;
Lefaivre 2007). Thus the experiments developed in the
Amsterdam playgrounds were not determined a priori,
but were defined as the outcome of the process of partici-
pation that involved citizens and institutions. Not being
located in an area pre-determined for this function, these
interventions fit into the interstices of the urban space, in
which the gap addresses design as a procedure for read-
ing the social and spatial matrix. A further significant
aspect is linked with the fact that these playgrounds were
Page 3 of 14
not created to establish individual units but, rather, to set
up an extensive polycentric network. The importance of
this work should also be traced back to a different con-
ception of public space based on practices started up by
parts of the community and the development of forms of
micro-urbanity.
The concept of informality is also mentioned in the
theoretic models developed between the 50s and 60s, in
which the Situationist International, a movement operat-
ing in the political, social and artistic fields opposing the
effects of functionalist planning, formulated new
approaches for the social space of the city. Situationism
proposed radical actions through the search for mobile
urban spaces and an architecture that could be trans-
formed in harmony with the desires of the inhabitants.
These avant-garde ideas have a clearly playful nature;
they were centred on the need to link up the built envi-
ronment with the context and conceive of space as a
product of social activity. The main purpose of the move-
ment was to create “situations” (Holmes 2007), defined as
moments of life concretely and deliberately constructed
by the collective organisation of a single environment and
the play of events.1
The Situationists took up the practice of urban wan-
dering again, defining it “psychogeographical dérive”.
This consisted of an exploration of the city aimed at
understanding the effects of space on the individual and
his behaviour, the separation of the social aspects of the
topography and the effective dimension of built spaces,
and at acknowledging the psychic effects of the urban
context (Careri 2001). In the dérive proposed by the Situ-
ationists the modern condition of the city is celebrated,
in which public spaces have ceased to be the place of dia-
logue and exchange, to become an unforeseeable fabric
determined by multiple itineraries. The dérive is a spatial
experience that starts with the figure of the flâneur, intro-
duced by Baudelaire and Benjamin, but proposes a new
condition, a route dictated by indeterminacy and chance,
an indifference that enables the city to be explored using
a map that is not the traditional one, as appears clearly
from the plans of Debord’s Naked City and New Baby-
lon by Costant (Sadler 1999). The figure of the flâneur,
as well as bearing witness to a bewildered human condi-
tion, highlights the desire to understand the city going
over and above the traditional interpretative categories
and experimenting with new relations with the territory
(Benjamin 1986, 2010; Nuvolati 2006). Through these
representations the world ceases to appear as an object
in itself, but is defined more and more as a background,
1 
Definitions taken from the Situationist International Bulletin, S.I.N° 1,
June 1958 (Various Authors 1994).
Lutzoni City Territ Archit (2016) 3:20
which cannot be separated from social behaviour and
structure (Maciocco and Pittaluga 2001).
The passage from a functionalist approach to one more
attentive to understanding urban complexity, typical of
the Situationist movement, appears perfectly clear in
the research developed from the 60s onwards by Andrea
Branzi. This author suggested passing from “strong, con-
centrated” modernity, typical of the nineteen-hundreds,
to the current “weak and widespread” type, dwelling on
the importance of devising reversible, evolutive, tem-
porary, imperfect and incomplete projects, as close as
possible to the needs of a society able to continuously
reprocess its social and territorial situation, casting off
the old and reassigning new functions to the city (Branzi
2006). As Branzi emphasises, this entails “less composi-
tive and more enzymatic” projects, able to fit into the
processes of transformation of the territory without
being based on external figurative codes but rather on
internal environmental qualities, dispersed over the ter-
ritory and not enclosed within a perimeter established a
priori.
This inclination to work according to a “weak and wide-
spread” logic does not imply any negative value of inef-
ficiency or incapacity; it simply indicates a particular
process of modification and knowledge that follows log-
ics that are natural and non-geometric, processes that
are widespread, not concentrated, and strategies that are
reversible and self-balancing (Branzi 2006).
The No-Stop City project, proposed at the end of the
60s by the Archizoom Studio represents a radical view
of the city of the future. The research places the formal
questions linked with the figurative codes of the dis-
cipline in the background, favouring a non-figurative
approach (Branzi 2006). Starting with a critical analysis
of metropolitan reality of the 50s–60s, serial production
models in evolution were proposed. By the repetitive
multiplication of some modular elements new spatiali-
ties were defined. Though inspired by a criticism of the
ideology of the functionalist models, the fruit of a serial
repetition of elements, this project represented urban
territory as an open, temporary system, a non-formal
reality in which energy may arise that is able to create
hybrid and complex structures, rich in a multiplicity of
functions and uses.
“The need of cities for a most intricate and close-grained
diversity of uses that give each other constant mutual sup-
port, both economically and socially” (Jacobs 1961, p. 14)
is highlighted in the book The Death and Life of Great
American Cities (1961), in which Jane Jacobs investigated
the functioning of the city based on the social behaviour
of inhabitants and their interactions. “The look of things
and the way they work are inextricably bound together,
and in no place more so than cities. […] It is futile to plan
Page 4 of 14
a city’s appearance, or speculate on how to endow it with
a pleasing appearance of order, without knowing what sort
of innate, functioning order it has” (Jacobs 1961, p. 14).
The study of informal dynamics proves more effective
for the purpose of understanding urban phenomena with
respect to the traditional “methods of urban redevelop-
ment and planning” that totally disregard people’s “real
life”. The idea of a place, its deep meaning or vocation
is not the space defined by designers and architects, but
the place of experiences and livability (Jacobs 1961). In
the empirical research developed by Jacobs the concepts
of neighbourhood and space-sharing rediscover in the
street element a fulcrum for the construction of a collec-
tivity based on the informal uses that appear in the con-
temporary city and territories.
A further reference to help us understand the phenom-
enon of informality can be found in John F.C. Turner’s
studies in Peru in the early 60s. In his research on the
barriadas of Lima the author analysed the changing and
forming of entire informal districts and the features these
processes took on within the urban structure. The most
significant aspect of Turner’s research lies in the identifi-
cation of some potential in the informal settlements and
their acceptance as a possible alternative to the prob-
lem of inhabiting. In the book Housing by People Turner
(1978) criticised the traditional ways of inhabiting, char-
acterised by poor flexibility, conveying what Mike Davis
defines as “illusions of self-help” (Davis 2006, p. 69):
when the inhabitants can contribute to decision-making
processes and project achievement, the resulting envi-
ronment appears as the positive outcome of social and
spatial relations.
During the 70s and 80s the phenomenon of informality
was handled not so much within the urbanism and archi-
tecture sphere of studies, as in disciplinary sectors like
sociology, anthropology and economics. The idea also
spread, illustrated better below in the dualist approach,
according to which informality converged with non-
planning and arose through the occupation and illegal
transformation of space and as such contrasted with tra-
ditional forms of planning (Castillo 2001), thus ignoring
the complex system of dynamics contained in the rela-
tions between formal and informal.
The relationship between informality and urban design
has recently been the subject of renewed interest. In 2008
an issue of the Harvard Design Magazine (Saunders 2008)
observed that design could be an important element to
improve quality of life in the informal city, focusing on
some significant expeDe Certeauriments that highlighted
how informality had become one of the important com-
ponents of the debates on the contemporary city.
Among the issues of greater interest we can pick
out those developed by Rem Koolhaas. In his study on
Lutzoni City Territ Archit (2016) 3:20
spontaneous urbanism in Lagos the architect described
the spontaneous forms of self-organisation of the city as
a “comfortably disorganised” structure (Various Authors
2000). In this research the creative capacity of residents
and their inclination for survival and work were enthused
over, as well as the need to pay attention to informal
practices and phenomena that were present in the city.
The analysis of the Lagos metropolis also highlighted
that some systems and factors considered marginal,
liminal, informal or illegal in the traditional ways of
conceiving the city may, on the other hand, represent
an opportunity, if fit into a different perspective. Roy
(2011) points out, however, that this research estab-
lished a considerable division between the traditional
city design methods and spontaneous practices, favour-
ing the creation of subaltern urbanism, considered by
Koolhaas the non-complementary alternative to the tra-
ditional forms of city. In this respect, the chaotic forms of
the city contain within them absolutely rational logics of
expansion and appear as autonomous systems of urban
development.
This decisive surge towards self-organised forms and
economies may also be associated with the “heroic entre-
preneurial spirit” proposed by de Soto (2000). According
to this author, there are entrepreneurs in Third World
Countries who have talent, enthusiasm and the abil-
ity to make profit from “nothing”. The obstacle that pre-
vents them from creating capital is linked solely with the
absence of a system of recognition of property and the
consequent impossibility to convert it into capital. The
process of “formalisation” of informal properties may
favour the creation of new institutions and constitute an
open system of properties easily accessible to everyone.
De Soto interprets the informal economy as a rebellion
from the bottom that will oppose the traditional capital-
ist system. In the same direction, Davis (2006) defines
a future perspective based on a conflict for survival, a
struggle between formal and informal that will actually
start to develop in the slums.
The concept of informality is also one of the themes
proposed by Alejandro Avarena at the Venice Biennial,
15th International Exhibition of Architecture to describe
the present and future of the city. Entitled Reporting from
the Front, the Biennial aimed to offer a contribution, by
means of some significant project-based experiments,2 to
the many challenges on which urbanism is called to
2 
Among the numerous projects exploring the theme of informality we
wish to point out: that of the Bair Balliet group of designers which offers
some suggestions for urban renewal in the city of Detroit; the study of the
Brazilian favelas presented by Patricia Parinejad; a set of projects aiming to
transform the life of the poorest rural communities in Chile; the proposal
to introduce small structures into the traditional “hutong” of Peking by the
Chinese architect Zhang Ke and the structuring of tactical constructions
proposed by a group of Hong Kong architects (Various Authors 2016).
Page 5 of 14
provide answers (Various Authors 2016). The exhibition
Report from Cities: Conflicts of an Urban Age, set up by
Ricky Burdett, recalled the most important tendencies
and conflicts currently underway in the urban sphere,
amongst which the opposition between formal and infor-
mal emerges. The exhibition selected some metropolises,
highlighting with maps showing spatial change how they
have altered within a time-frame of 25–100  years and
how most of the urban growth of recent decades has
been characterised by the presence of informal phenom-
ena. On the one hand, certain processes of informality in
urban space are illustrated, and on the other, examples of
formalisation leading to privatised configurations of the
space and to the formation of structures like the gated
communities, enclosed residential areas patrolled by
police and devoid of relations with the surrounding
space. The recurring element of the exhibition shown in
the pavilion of cities involves the awareness that it is not
possible to handle the complexity of the city by reasoning
on the extreme poles of dichotomies, like, for example,
formal and informal, but there is the need, rather, to
understand how architecture and urbanism can be
restructured to provide answers for uncertain, indefinite
social, economic and environmental conditions.
The reflections made by Koolhaas (Various Authors
2000), De Soto (2000) and Davis (2006) have referred to
a formal/informal approach of a contrary dichotomous
type. In contrast with these tendencies urban complex-
ity may be dealt with from a wider viewpoint (Various
Authors 2016) and informality may be understood as a
way of inhabiting the territory (Alsayyad 2004), a way of
producing space made up of a series of transitions that
link a variety of economies and places to others. It is
not a case of a simple connecting line but a continuum
between formal and informal, characterised by a fractal
type of approach. “The splintering of urbanism does not
take place at the fissure between formality and informal-
ity but, rather, in fractal fashion, within the in-formalised
production of space” (Roy 2009, p. 82).
In this sense Hernández et  al. (2010) considers infor-
mal settlements as relational spheres in which in-between
space materialises (Bhabha 1994), an intermediate space
(Maciocco and Tagliagambe 2009; Tagliagambe 2008)
between two conditions in which different forms of crea-
tivity may become manifest.
Another way of conceiving informality may arise
when the State tries to intervene to suppress or attack
it. Yiftachel (2009) reflects on the meaning of informal-
ity in the Palestine/Israel context, identifying it as a grey
space. “Urban informality is a ‘gray space’—positioned
between the ‘whiteness’ of legality/approval/safety, and
the ‘blackness’ of eviction/demolition/death” (Yiftachel
2009, p. 89). These grey spaces are permanent areas at
Lutzoni City Territ Archit (2016) 3:20
the city edges that can be dealt with by corrective policies
of compensation or by delegitimisation and criminali-
sation arguments. Understanding the grey space helps
us to conceptualise two associated dynamics which the
author defines as “whitening”, or approval, and “blacken-
ing”, or destruction. The first alludes to the tendency of
the system to “recycle” grey spaces created by powerful
or favourable interests, and the second refers to the State
process of “resolution” of the problem aimed at turning
the grey space into black space (Yiftachel 2009).
The reflections put forward by Roy and Alsayyad
(2004), Hernández et  al. (2010) and Yiftachel (2009)
highlight that planning practices are not separate from
informal ones, but rather constitute integral parts of a
single system of relations. Studying deeper the evolution
of the concept of informality below, we will illustrate the
passage from an oppositional model, characterised by
the contrast and exclusion of the two formal-informal
spheres, to a dialogical one, more attentive to under-
standing the relations between them.
Urban informality: a challenging concept
It appears rather complicated to give a universal defini-
tion of the concept of informality. Since the 60s of the
last century—the period in which the term was used for
the first time—informality has appeared as a social and
economic phenomenon difficult to interpret, especially
when attempts to tackle it used analytical instruments
belonging to a single discipline (Coletto 2010). The first
debates on informality focused on informal employment
and the economic aspects connected with it, neglecting
the spatial sphere and the emerging forms of urbanity. It
was evident from the first definitions of informality that
scholars were unable to describe a wide range of people,
activities and spaces, with features not clearly identifi-
able, unless they used a dualist approach.
The conceptual frame analysing manifestations of
informal processes of the urban system initially devel-
oped in the sphere of research on developing countries.
The term “informal economy” was used for the first time
in two international pieces of research carried out by
the United Nations ILO agency (International Labour
Organization): the first, the report Informal Income
Opportunities and Urban Employment in Ghana, was
the result of research done during the years 1965–1968
by the English anthropologist Keith Hart; the second,
Employment, incomes and equality (1972), consisted
of research performed in Kenya (ILO 1972) in the early
70s which involved various ILO experts and research-
ers and dealt with sketching out a picture of informality
conditions, with particular attention to the less devel-
oped countries. It is important to note, however, that
the ILO completely neglected the dynamic aspect of the
Page 6 of 14
phenomenon, limiting itself to confirming the dichotomy
between what is formal and everything that is not, and
giving rise to the dualist approach. Also, in this early
research importance was not given to the informal sector
as a sphere of analysis; it was only observed in relation to
other study programmes. The ILO concentrated, moreo-
ver, on the visible implications of informality rather than
its causes, giving the concept a meaning that was stand-
ardised for certain features.
The period between the 70s and 90s of the last cen-
tury was marked by a concentration of theoretical stud-
ies that modified the approach to the concept of urban
informality.
As informality was described by a number of theoreti-
cal and empirical approaches, it gave rise to some schools
of thought. The different positions did not follow a linear
pattern over time, but overlapped each other depend-
ing on the various local contexts. Three phase scan be
picked out in which some views of informality were pre-
dominant over the others. In the first phase, between the
70s and 80s, we find the dualist school, which conceives
of informality as a group of marginal activities excluded
from the formal economy. The second phase, during
the 80s–90s, was characterised by the spread of various
interpretations. Among the most important we find the
legalist approach, characterised by the view of informal-
ity as a set of positive forces in a formal context linked
with power strategies, and the Structuralist school which,
though considering informality an integral part of a sin-
gle system, referred solely to the economic field. The 90s
represent a pause in the debate on informality, while in
the twenty-first century a phase has begun that is distin-
guished by renewed interest for this phenomenon (Roy
2005) and in particular for its relations with the globalisa-
tion processes that are changing the economic, social and
political geography of the world.
Formal‑informal dichotomous models
The traditional ways of reading the city can easily be
traced back to dichotomous interpretative categories,
which, though fundamentally important for understand-
ing urban phenomena, are structured on a binary pat-
tern based on the definition of certain privileged axes of
spatial, social, economic and cultural organisation. These
categories have carried out a descriptive function in the
analysis and construction of knowledge capable of sim-
plifying urban complexity. According to this pattern, a
sphere of interest is defined, based on which diverging or
“other” experiences are highlighted, which go to make up
the opposite dichotomous pole. Actually, this binary sys-
tem of conceptualisation of the city shows an inability to
define adequate perspectives for the contemporary urban
condition.
Lutzoni City Territ Archit (2016) 3:20
The models opposing formal and informal consider
informality as the unregulated, uncontrolled, untidy
and inefficient use of space, in an antithetical position
compared with the tidy, regulated and planned sphere.
The formal-informal dichotomy, summarising a vari-
ety of social relations, spatial forms and urban econo-
mies, encapsulates a wide spectrum of situations within
a binary structure. Hence, the term “formal” refers to
assimilated spheres, specific forms, elements or proce-
dures that, having been decoded, have become stand-
ard, the norm, rule or convention. Informality, on the
contrary, introduced into the theoretical debate from
the 60s onwards, is a concept that is defined, interpreted
and conceptualised with great difficulty, due to the multi-
plicity of urban, social, cultural and economic meanings
it can have. Of the complex dichotomous approaches,
developed mainly in the economic sphere, only the most
significant aspects for urban design will be highlighted.
Dualist approach
According to the dualist approach, informality is a sphere
separated from formal or regular processes, made up of
marginal and residual activities and able to provide a liv-
ing for individuals or groups at the edge of society. In this
approach these activities are destined to prosper only as
long as the industrial sector continues to blossom. Hence
we do not speak of “informal economy”, but of “informal
sector”, conceived as “the part of the urban economy of
less developed countries composed of individual, family or
small-size enterprises. It provides the major source of
employment in the cities, with salaries lower than the
minimum level envisaged by the law and production pro-
cesses presenting high intensity of work, little machinery,
low investments and low barriers on entry” (Bellanca
2010).3
This approach may be traced back to the first inves-
tigations into informal economy fostered by the ILO
in the 70s, in particular the Kenya Report of 1972. The
purpose of the survey was to supply an accurate analy-
sis of the informal panorama and draw up a series of
guidelines. This research highlighted a set of criticalities.
First of all, the survey focused on a strictly urban sphere
excluding the areas outside the compact city. Moreover,
although the approach addressed the social life of the
city (Alsayyad 2004) and was allegedly multidisciplinary,
in actual fact it favoured an economic type of approach,
preferring simplified points of view and unable to grasp
the complexity of the phenomenon. This dualist approach
encouraged the emergence of a dichotomous perspective
3 
Our translation.
Page 7 of 14
between formal and informal urban economy, devoid of
any relationship between the two spheres.
Legalist approach
Arising from the dualist approach some alternative views
of informality were generated. One of the most signifi-
cant was offered by Hernando de Soto’s legalist school,
which, not taking into account the preceding theories,
brought forth an original way of conceptualising infor-
mality. In the book The Other Path (De Soto 1989) De
Soto developed the thesis that informal economy was a
response to inefficient State regulation of the economy.
In a situation where it was difficult to become integrated
into the formal economy, the inhabitants were forced to
seek spontaneous and creative solutions. De Soto stated
that the origin of informality was not to be sought in
particular cultural, religious or social features, but in the
inefficiency of the formal economy. “This extralegal sec-
tor is a grey area that has a long frontier with the legal
world, a place where individuals take refuge when the cost
of obeying the law outweighs the benefit. […] The poor are
not the problem but the solution. […] What the poor are
missing are the legally integrated property systems that
can convert their work and savings into capital” (De Soto
2000, p. 89, 241). According to De Soto, in the countries
of the south of the world there is a lack of property rights,
an essential prerequisite for forming self-regulated mar-
kets and able to reduce uncertainties for investors. It is
indeed this total inefficacy of the economic system that
drives individuals to follow an informal type of approach.
The heroic entrepreneurial spirit characterising this
approach sees the informal sector as something closed
compared with the formal one.
The alternative proposed by De Soto, beginning with a
negative conception of State intervention, aims at dereg-
ulation of the informal sector. The analysis, though fos-
tering an empirical study of the phenomenon, does not
deal with the interactive relationship between formal and
informal and describes the informal sector inaccurately,
like a grey area with a long frontier opposing the legal
world (Portes and Schauffler 1993).
The principal approaches contrasting formal and infor-
mal do not recognise the informal as a differentiated
process bearing various degrees of diversification; they
maintain the equivalence of informality and marginality.
Duality, apparently useful for analysing phenomena from
a general viewpoint, does not help us understand their
complexity. There are many arguments that can be set
down against these approaches. The departure point is
the refusal of the concept of informal “sector”, in favour
of the term “modality” of informal transformation. It is
interesting to contrast the traditional dichotomy of the
two sectors with the idea of informality as a series of
Lutzoni City Territ Archit (2016) 3:20
processes and practices connecting different economies
and spaces (Roy 2005; McFarlane 2012).
Formal‑informal dialogic models
Structuralist approach
At the end of the 80s, Castells and Portes (1989) focused
on the structure of the relations between formal and
informal. In contrast with the dualist school, which con-
sidered informality a set of marginal activities excluded
from the formal economy, and the legalist school, which
saw informality as a set of positive forces in a formal
context linked with power strategies, the Structuralist
approach asserted that informality was an integral part
of a single system. In the Structuralist school the cast-
ing off of a dichotomous approach began to be glimpsed,
opposed by reality made up of a dense system of rela-
tions between formal and informal, which, however,
were explored mainly from the economic point of view.
The Structuralists started up a series of research stud-
ies that, instead of considering official data and statis-
tics, were based on empirical observations. The result of
these investigations confirmed the existence of a number
of original relations between formal and informal. This
approach highlights how informality can no longer be
considered a phenomenon found only in the countries in
the south of the world (Coletto 2010).
Relational approach
Apart from the different interpretations given to infor-
mality, it is significant to note that the complexity of
economic, social, spatial and cultural relations makes it
impossible to work out an approach linked with a sin-
gle paradigm, but it appears necessary to resort to logics
based on multidisciplinary models.
From the concise relaunch of the main theoretical
approaches that have dealt with the subject of informal-
ity since the beginning of the 60s, it becomes clear that
this term has been susceptible to numerous interpreta-
tions. Nevertheless, in recent years new interest in the
phenomenon has been seen to converge due to two fac-
tors (Chen 2006). Firstly, in spite of the prediction that
it would be reorganised or even disappear, the informal
economy has grown notably in many countries and in
some cases has appeared in innovative forms and pro-
cedures or unexpected spaces. Secondly, this theme has
come to light again in the theoretical debate as an ele-
ment of strength to promote processes of economically
and socially sustainable development. From a theoreti-
cal point of view, the continuous search for criteria to
redefine informality has not enabled a concept to be for-
mulated with universal value. For this reason, the term
is often used with a negative sense, indicating not what
it represents, but how it differs from the formal sphere.
Page 8 of 14
This negative connotation has not succeeded in putting
the numerous research studies on the theme in the back-
ground; they have enabled a sort of “map” of informal-
ity and its multiple viewpoints to be created. In spite of
the lack of conceptual clarity, the diversity of definitions
and the tendency to categorise “formal” and “informal”
as a dichotomy, the two terms have continued to be used
widely to describe different phenomena. This analytical-
descriptive process has highlighted the density of situa-
tions that characterise the borders between formal and
informal and has enabled the dichotomous view of infor-
mality to be put into the background, shifting the atten-
tion onto the area of interconnection between the two
poles. It therefore seems interesting to take into consid-
eration the hazy, hybrid space, the privileged place of
expression of diversity of these interactions.
Informality and urban project
Towards a socio‑spatial continuum between Formal‑Informal
Following this path and starting with the use that can be
made of the two terms and their different characterisa-
tions, Ostrom et  al. (2006) has defined a conceptual
frame that has enabled the many definitions of formal
and informal to be summarised within two groups of
thought. The first trend considers the informal an ele-
ment that is external to government mechanisms, and
the formal as internal to these instruments. Whereas the
second tendency considers the informal devoid of struc-
ture, and the formal, on the contrary, an organised sys-
tem. In the light of these two parameters, i.e. the
relationship with government mechanisms and the
degree of structuring (Ostrom et  al. 2006) shows some
weak points of the two dichotomous approaches. In the
first approach, the author emphasises the inadequacy of
the measures adopted towards the informal, such as the
processes of formalisation or legalisation of property,
while in the second case she highlights the weakness in
associating the concept of informality with that of disor-
ganisation. This opposing perspective also relegates to
the background the innumerable processes that involve
phenomena and groups of individuals. It thus appears
necessary to analyse the complex relations between the
two spheres focusing on the formal-informal continuum
(Ostrom et al. 2006).4
This position entails a shift of interest from the search
for a single design underlying a multiplicity of events,
4 
On this subject Ostrom (et al. 2006) suggests some principles to link the
formal sphere with the informal: a system at various levels of government as
an alternative to centralisation or total decentralisation; a balance between
“formal” intervention and “informal” practices; made to measure interven-
tions as regards the capacity of the structure; interventions that have various
possible outcomes; verify whether formalisation is functioning by measur-
ing up to what point people are willing to be part of the network.
Lutzoni City Territ Archit (2016) 3:20
typical of the dichotomous approach, towards the analy-
sis of fracture phenomena, “that of the fracture and the
limit, no longer that of the foundation that lasts, but that
of transformations that serve as a foundation and renewal
of foundations (Foucault 1969, p. 8).”5 The method pro-
posed implies that it is impossible to pick out a straight
chain of causes to define relations between phenomena.
We are confronted instead with some series of events in
which we have to define each time the elements, limits
and relationships.
Ananya Roy has devised her own definition of infor-
mality stating that: “if formality operates through the fix-
ing of value, including the mapping of spatial value, then
informality operates through the constant negotiability
of value and the unmapping of space” (Alsayyad 2004).
This definition opens the way to a variety of interface and
interconnection processes between the formal and infor-
mal sphere. The idea of informality as a way of life gives
way to understanding the relations and interactions with
urban development that give shape to and build up this
system. Informality is not outside formal systems, but is
produced by formal systems and always connected with
them.
Abandoning a dichotomous approach to the analysis
of urban processes entails a complete change of perspec-
tive: attention is no longer paid to the borderlines, namely
to the differences and interdependence, but rather to the
borderlands, areas of hybridisation and relational spaces
between the formal and informal spheres. The border-
lands category succeeds in explaining this process of
hybridisation best. The concept differs from borderline,
which crosses, cuts and separates space. The borderlands
category refers to frontier areas where different spheres
are activated and enter into contact. “They are spaces that
are constituted in terms of discontinuities […]. In consti-
tuting them as analytic borderlands, discontinuities are
given a terrain of operations rather than being reduced to
a dividing line” (Sassen 2005, p. 83). Sassen (1994, 2001,
2006) describes the intersection between formal and
informal urban economy as a terrain of discontinuity in
which something new may be created from a cultural,
social and economic point of view. It is a matter of border
areas, characterised by highly dense social environments,
whose dynamics are understandable only if the instru-
ments of analysis based on traditional dualisms are put in
the background. The overlapping areas build themselves
up in their theoretical and methodological specificity; it
is possible that both poles subject to the interaction sub-
sequently enter into the process of reconfiguration (Per-
ulli 2007).
5 
Our translation.
Page 9 of 14
In this regard, the formal-informal continuum is fun-
damental for understanding current urban development.
At the moment in which elements of interaction between
formal-informal are recognised, each dichotomous or
dualist pattern falls apart in favour of mixed trajectories,
a sort of “meshwork” (Ingold 2011), a weaving of “bun-
dles of lines” (Deleuze and Guattari 1980) that becomes
a vast, structured terrain on which new spatialities and
different forms of urban life can be sketched out.
Urban informality and the production of space
In contrast with the tendency of some theoretical posi-
tions that consider urban informality an aspect alien to
planning and design forms, and which study the impact
of informal practices and activities according to a view
limited solely to the establishment of forms of social-
spatial segregation and inequality, the relational perspec-
tive between spheres enables us to analyse this spatial
concept from different points of view. Informality cannot
be associated solely with disorganisation and chaos phe-
nomena or with forms of social disjointedness (Alsayyad
2004), but refers to a wider context and has distinctive
features that permit its theorisation separately from the
single geographies of places (Alsayyad 2004). To this end
it seems important to highlight that spatial geographies
are not to be understood as “geographies of features”,
pre-established entitities that tend to identify the com-
mon traits of a particular condition, but rather as “pro-
cess geographies” (Appadurai 2000), such as to identify
an urban theory that goes beyond the simple localisa-
tion of urban phenomena and is capable of analysing and
understanding the cultural, social, spatial and economic
processes (Olds 2001).
The “formal” and “informal” categories cannot be ana-
lysed following a dichotomous oppositional perspective,
like a normative power opposed to an incipient one, since
“these poles, connected with the will of the social forces,
structure the faces of the city with their borders”.6 (Cham-
oiseau 1992, p. 227) and are supported by a different rela-
tion.7 The relationship between the abstract spaces of the
planned city (with its land uses, zoning, rules and formal
processes) and the untidy reality of the informal spaces
place the relation between informal and formal at the
centre of attention. The latter recalls the difference,
6 
Our translation.
7
  The relation between formal and informal sphere is explored in the novel
Texaco, which describes the way of life and the structuring of the spaces of
the informal Creole city. Chamoiseau (1992) picks out the space between
these two conditions as a border and hybridisation area, in which a series
of relations are generated linked with industriousness, work, contacts and
civil relationships. The relation between formal and informal is structured
indeed on this continuous process of interaction between the two spheres.
Lutzoni City Territ Archit (2016) 3:20
pointed out by Lefebvre (1991), between work and prod-
uct. “A work has something irreplaceable and unique
about it, a product can be reproduced exactly, and is in
fact the result of repetitive acts and gestures” (Lefebvre
1991, p. 70). A work is created by a process that, though
entailing some type of work, needs more than this; it
needs an injection of forms of art and creativity; the
product, on the other hand, is the result of serialised ges-
tures, and is thus repeatable and reproducible (Chiodelli
2009). Formal planning, like the product, is the outcome
of a deliberate process in which a central power proceeds
from an abstract thought towards the direct application
of the initial idea. On the contrary “the creative capacity
in question here is invariably that of a community or col-
lectivity […] a social reality capable of investing a space—
capable, given the resources (productive forces, technology
and knowledge, means of labour, etc.), of producing that
space” (Lefebvre 1991, p. 115). As Chiodelli maintains
(Chiodelli 2009), creativity is based on social practices,
slow, contrasting, divergent but capable at the same time
of producing a unitary social project, which becomes real
in an urban space.
The contrast and distinction between work and prod-
uct, like that between formal and informal, certainly has
relative significance. Between these terms a more subtle
relation exists, that is neither an identity or an opposi-
tion: the formal processes of planning supply precise
rules and directions for structuring the territory, while
informal ones model, occupy and generate space fol-
lowing principles like spontaneity and self-organisation.
What relation exists between these two ways of structur-
ing space? The movement that is triggered and in turn
produces new social reality is based neither on formal or
informal, but on their dialectical relationship in the space
(Lefebvre 1991).
In this connection it is important to emphasise that it
is not the single formal or informal processes that deter-
mine the positive outcome of the planning and design
process for urban space, but rather the quality of the
relations existing between the two spatial concepts. The
informal, placing itself in a dialectical relation with the
formal, configures relational spaces and defines a meet-
ing point between two different ways of structuring
society. No “creative capacity” on the part of a collec-
tivity could exist, in fact, if a structural rule of everyday
life did not exist. “If and when this dialectical (and hence
conflictual) relationship ceases […] must come to an end
[…] the capacity to create” (Lefebvre 1991, p. 116). These
categories cannot therefore be analysed according to
an oppositional method since they feed each other in a
totally reciprocal way. Informality is an organising logic
(Alsayyad 2004) that can develop only in so far as there
is a rule or formal structure that will favour its success.
Page 10 of 14
Hence the relation between formal and informal shows
itself through interaction: their affinities and differences
are in a state of equilibrium which is reflected in an irre-
solvable tension (Mehrotra 2010). Only by observing the
phenomena characterising contemporary urbanism can
we highlight the existence of the strong interconnection
between the two spheres.
Michel Foucault (1969, 1977) also attempted to over-
come a contrasting perspective between spheres and
adopt a relational dimension with his analysis of power
relations. Foucault overturned the question of power,
opposing the perspective of sovereignty from above,
typical of a formal approach, with that of decentralised,
informal power that follows life in the apparent ran-
domness of the day-to-day. It was not a case of formal
power, exercised by a top-down approach, but a series of
micro-powers spread at an everyday level, able to estab-
lish themselves in society and in the forms of culture and
knowledge (Foucault 1977).
In this sense informality fits into the field of application
of a “central power” (Roy 2009a) and only the latter may
determine what is informal and what is not (Castells and
Portes 1989). Roy (2005), recalling Agamben (1995),
maintains that informality represents a condition deriv-
ing from the suspension of an order, rather than the
chaos that precedes it (Agamben 1995). In this respect
informality is conceived not as an object of regulation of
the State but, on the contrary, a product or the outcome
of this regulation, or as a state of exception.8 Only formal
structures and rules have the power to determine what is
formal and what is not (Roy 2005). Hence informality
may be described as a planning strategy, or a planning
language (Roy 2009b).
Urban informality, taking shape as one of the princi-
pal and most significant ways of producing urban space
in contemporary cities and territories, highlights an
issue around which it is essential to initiate some reflec-
tions. Informal practices challenge the formalisation of
the current design and planning processes, which, based
on abstract techniques and theories, generate a system
devoid of contact with reality. Formal knowledge, under-
estimating the potential arising from possible interac-
tions between formal and informal, currently seems
unable to supply satisfactory answers on the changes
8 
The concept of state of exception proposed by Agamben (1995) is traced
back to that of sovereignty. The power of the sovereign founds the law, but
at the same time is excluded from its application. The state of exception is
a process by which the sovereign suspends the validity of a law and to do
so has to be outside the law himself. The exception is however always as
regards the norm through the relation of exclusion that links the norm with
its exception. According to Agamben, the line of exception may be traced
back to a border space, an intermediate area between order and disorder,
formal and informal, which is indeed the state of exception, through which
chaos is included in the norm.
Lutzoni City Territ Archit (2016) 3:20
underway in contemporary society. It therefore seems
indispensable to focus on these spaces to try to under-
stand to what extent planning, as a formalising normative
power, may “learn” from the informal (Friedmann 1987).
Some phenomena and experiences linked with urban
informality are in effect potentially able to reconfigure a
theoretical framework of analysis, planning and design
based on the real uses in the city and on contemporary
territories (Porter 2011).
Designing for the Space for relations between Formal
and Informal: the San Diego‑Tijuana experiment
A number of experiments have acknowledged and legiti-
mised the potential of urban informality and consider
the relational sphere between formal and informal a base
for challenging the current paradigms of space planning
and design. This is what is happening in some areas near
the border between the United States and Mexico, where
the ETC (Estudio Teddy Cruz, University of California-
San Diego) and the NGO Casa Familiar have tried out
an experimental research method concentrating on the
spaces for relations between formal and informal.
The border between the United States and Mexico is a
territory presenting a series of highly complex situations,
where North American and Latin-American cultures
enter into close contact/conflict with each other but are
at the same time separated by a physical barrier, a wall,
dividing them. This area may be defined as a space that
is simultaneously permeable and impenetrable, featur-
ing an inclusion/exclusion process (Davis 2006). The
transnational metropolis spreading between San Diego
and Tijuana also represents different ways of conceiving
the city located on the same territory. The presence of
the international border has led to two antithetic urban
developments emerging, each of which with its own spa-
tial, social, economic and cultural conformation. San
Diego, with its suburban order, is the emblem of urban
development based on separation, control and exclusion,
implemented by the creation of surveillance infrastruc-
tures and characterised by sprawl; whereas Tijuana’s ris-
ing urban development shows informal settlements that
have colonised the territory on both sides of the inter-
national frontier on a much lower scale, taking shape via
heterogeneous, hybrid processes of juxtaposition and
improvisation that attempt to oppose the wall separating
these two realities.
The area of San Diego city close to the border with
Mexico presents numerous informal settlements that are
growing at a much faster rate than that in progress in the
central areas of the city and based on the informal set-
tlement model of Tijuana. In these spaces a process of
reappropriation of the marginal territories is underway to
transform them into more complex areas with alternative
Page 11 of 14
economies. Precisely this condition has encouraged pro-
jects to emerge for the space of action between formal
processes and informal practices.
Beginning with identifying the tendencies towards
change in space organisation and ways of life underway
on the territory linked with the spatial concept of urban
informality, ETC’s research suggests heterogeneous ele-
ments be introduced into San Diego’s current urban sys-
tem to steer it towards prospective changes. This concept
has taken shape, in particular, in a local urban acupunc-
ture project (de Solà Morales 1999; Lerner 2003), follow-
ing the principle that small interventions on a local scale
may have enormous potential in activating more exten-
sive and complex processes.
To be specific, this territorial project is a micro-sphere
experiment in the San Ysidro district, a low-income com-
munity made up of families of Latin-American immi-
grants and situated close to the international border. The
“Living Rooms at the Border” project proposed small
systems be created possessing a space with a mixture of
functions, like homes, services and infrastructures, with
the aim of activating innovative processes over time
within the community (Cruz 2008) and favouring the def-
inition of a space of encounter between different urban
situations.
The experiment belongs to the field of space for social
action. For the project began with the physical and social
situation and has tried to interpret and steer the forces
and logics that are modifying the territory. In this par-
ticular case, we are dealing with a perspective involving
actions limited to certain points or areas of intervention.
Social action, not reasoning exclusively on the informal
but on the relationship this has with the formal, is try-
ing to recompose the city territory. Thus, new interme-
diate relational spaces are configured, embryos of vitality
able to reconnect the formal-informal thread, as well as
represent a point of encounter between two different but
closely linked ways of structuring society. This connective
space therefore has a therapeutic function, in that it fos-
ters social exchange within the community in the direc-
tion of opening up to shared models of conceiving the
city, without which the latter would lose its conversion
potential aimed at creating forms of urbanity.
Informality and different approaches to space
design
The analysis of the variety of directions in which urban
reality is being projected forces us to identify instruments
of analysis, knowledge and theorisation aimed at devising
project-oriented methods able to offer suitable solutions
for the complexity of spatial forms. Informal urban pro-
cesses appear in this respect to be an important perspective
from which to begin to reconfigure criteria and approaches
Lutzoni City Territ Archit (2016) 3:20
connected with space design. Thus, in spite of the concep-
tual complexity, the diverse definitions and the tendency to
contrast “formal” and “informal”, the importance taken on
by this relationship shows itself capable of triggering a dif-
ferent way of conceiving space, at the same time assigning a
perspective to future project-oriented action.
The density of situations that characterise the borders
between formal and informal allows their interpretation
in dichotomous terms to fall into the background, shift-
ing the attention towards the area of interconnection
between the two poles (McFarlane and Waibel 2016).
The informal takes on a relation of a dialogical type with
the formal, and contributes to reconfiguring the tradi-
tional situations no longer able to describe sufficiently
the phenomena that arise in the contemporary city. In
particular, this intermediate space (Maciocco and Tagli-
agambe 2009; Tagliagambe 2008) also represents the field
of action of urban design, which extends its horizons in
favour of knowledge neglected in city design but which
proves essential for exploring different ways of conceiv-
ing of the space of inhabiting.
Design consequently takes on an important value as an
instrument of knowledge. “To change in a non-procedural
sense the character of the models and techniques for the
construction of knowledge, means to surpass the proce-
dural linearity of the relationship between knowledge and
action and to target new horizons that honour the impor-
tance of project-based knowledge compared with analyti-
cal knowledge” (Maciocco 2005, p. 16).9
The importance of design is grasped in all its clarity
precisely in the ability to intercept single and episodic
phenomena, tendencies or behaviours and steer them
towards processes able to transform the city of the pre-
sent and direct the city of the future towards a devel-
opment perspective. This project-based paradigm faces
two features: the first, a component deriving from sys-
tematic, scientific, rigorous and formal processes, and
the second, an approach recognised in informal phe-
nomena characterised by continuous reconfigurations
of socio-spatial relations and experiences. Understood
as a driver of change, design is subject to a dual ten-
sion between the formal sphere of knowledge and the
need to analyse and endorse reality in its many infor-
mal forms and dimensions. It organises itself in this
wide intermediate space of action, and through con-
tinuous dialogical tension between formal and informal
is projected towards different trends and approaches,
an overall picture that is not final but in continuous
evolution. For its programmatic capacity enables the
compact network of relations to be developed and
perspectives of change to be triggered in the sphere
9 
Our translation.
Page 12 of 14
of transformation of the city. The interaction between
formal and informal processes also produces different
knowledge that contributes in turn to nurturing theo-
retical reflection.
Designing for intermediate spaces, between formal
and informal, entails moreover the use of a different
approach to the complexity of the city, characterised by
its consideration of urban space as the place in which
individual and collective practices can emerge (McFar-
lane 2012). However, this does not mean that design has
to oppose individual and collective initiatives, even less
that it should yield to them and take a non-propositional
perspective. As has been highlighted, the formal sphere,
within which we might also include design meant as a
regulatory instrument, places itself in a dialogical rela-
tionship with informal processes and actions. Represent-
ing an essential moment of urban life, this relationship
takes on great worth since innovative forms of creativity
and action can emerge from it. For in the absence of this
dialogical relationship no “creative capacity” could exist
on the part of a collectivity (Lefebvre 1991). Precisely the
importance of this concept summarises the value taken
on by design at the border between formal and informal.
Its non-episodic capacity makes the relationship estab-
lished between these two spheres able to create a shared
space that adapts itself to urban reality in continuous
change.
From this viewpoint, planning and design methods
relegate to the background rational-comprehensive posi-
tions that organise themselves through dichotomous
categories and universally valid holistic approaches, and
direct their gaze towards informal knowledge and micro-
processes neglected by city design. It is a case of address-
ing design that, based on the awareness of the value taken
on by the territory and its relations, develops as a struc-
turing element from which to depart with the purpose
of creating different perspectives in conceiving urban
space. This plural approach, in contrast with a homoge-
neous view of the city, favours the success of diversity
and alternative points of view. It therefore appears clear
that design can be the instrument of knowledge able to
cope with both the formal character and the informal one
of the city. The tension that develops from the relations
established between these spheres produces a different
awareness, closely connected with action, which contrib-
utes to defining perspectives for the city.
Authors’ information
Laura Lutzoni is a postdoctoral research fellow in Urban Planning at University
of Sassari, Department of Architecture, Design & Urban Planning. Her present
research focuses on the relationship between urban and architectural design
and the transformations of the urban context determined by spatial and
social processes that take place both within the city and the territory at large.
Among her publications: Shopping as an Urban Leisure Activity (In: Maciocco
G, Serreli S (Eds) Enhancing the City: New Perspectives for Tourism and
Leisure. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2009), Temporary uses
Lutzoni City Territ Archit (2016) 3:20
as a perspective of urban design (In: Maciocco G, Sanna G, Serreli S (Eds) The
Urban Potential of External Territories. FrancoAngeli, Milano, 2011) and Spazi
dell’acqua come luoghi dell’abitare. Il progetto della città di Olbia (Urbanistica
Informazioni, 263, 2015).
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Giovanni Maciocco at University of Sassari for
his helpful and constructive comments that greatly contributed to improv-
ing this work. A special thanks to Christine Tilley for her continued support in
translating and proofreading this contribution.
Competing interests
The author declares that she has no competing interests.
Received: 9 September 2016 Accepted: 4 October 2016
References
Agamben G (1995) Homo sacer. Il potere sovrano e la nuda vita. Einaudi,
Torino
Alsayyad N (2004) Urban Informality as ‘New’ Way of Life. In: Roy A, Alsayyad N
(eds) urban informality: transnational perspectives from the Middle East,
Latin America, and South Asia. Lexington Books, Lanham
Appadurai A (2000) Grassroots globalization and research imagination. Public
C 12:1–19
Bellanca N (2010) Una breve introduzione all’economia informale. http://www.
juragentium.unifi.it. Accessed 31 Aug 2016
Benjamin W (1986) Parigi capitale del XIX secolo. Einaudi, Torino
Benjamin W (2010) I “passages” di Parigi. Einaudi, Torino
Bhabha HK (1994) The location of culture. Routledge, London
Branzi A (2006) Modernità debole e diffusa Il mondo del progetto all’inizio del
XXI secolo. Skira, Milano
Careri F (2001) Constant New Babylon, una città nomade. Testo & Immagine,
Torino
Castells M, Portes A (1989) World underneath: the origins, dynamics and
effects of the informal economy. In: Castells M, Portes A, Benton L (eds)
The informal economy: studies in advanced and less developed coun-
tries. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Castillo J (2001) Urbanisms of the informal transformations in the urban fringe
of Mexico City. Praxis: J Writ Build 2(1):102–111
Chamoiseau P (1992) Texaco. Éditions Gallimard, Paris
Chen MA (2006) Rethinking the informal economy: linkages with the formal
economy and the formal regulatory environment. In: Ostrom E, Guha-
Khasnobis B, Kanbur R (eds) Linking the formal and informal economy.
Oxford University Press, New York
Chiodelli F (2009) La cittadinanza secondo Henri Lefebvre: urbana, attiva, a
matrice spaziale. Territorio 51:103–109
Coletto D (2010) L’economia informale nel sud del mondo fra dilemmi inter-
pretativi e di azione. http://rivista.overleft.it. Accessed on 31 Aug 2016
Cruz T (2008) De la frontière globale au quartier de frontière: pratiques
d’empiètement. Multitudes 31(1):69–74
Davis M (2006) Planet of slums. Verso, London
De Certeau M (1984) The practice of everyday life. University of California Press,
Berkeley
De Solà Morales M (1999) Progettare città. Quaderni di Lotus, 23
De Soto H (1989) The other path: the invisible revolution in the third world.
Harpercollins, New York
De Soto H (2000) The mystery of capital: why capitalism triumphs in the west
and fails everywhere else. Basic Books, New York
Deleuze G, Guattari F (1980) Mille plateaux. Capitalisme et schizophrénie. Édi-
tions de Minuit, Paris
Foucault M (1969) L’archéologie du savoir. Gallimard, Paris
Foucault M (1977) Microfisica del potere: interventi politici. Einaudi, Torino
Friedmann J (1987) Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action.
Princeton University Press, Princeton
Hernández F, Kellett P, Allen LK (eds) (2010) Rethinking the informal city: critical
perspectives from Latin America. Berghahn books, New York
Page 13 of 14
Holmes B (2007) Do-It-Yourself Geopolitics – Map of the World Upside Down.
In: AAVV Urban/act, aaa—PEPRAV, Paris. http://www.peprav.net. Accessed
on 31 Aug 2016
ILO (1972) Employment, income, and equality. A strategy for increasing pro-
ductive employment in Kenya. ILO, Geneva
Ingold T (2011) Being alive: essays on movement, knowledge and description.
Routledge, New York
Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Random House,
Toronto
Landry C (2006) The art of city making. Earthscan, London
Lefaivre L (2007) Ground-up city play as a design tool. 010 Publisher,
Rotterdam
Lefaivre L, Roode I, Fuchs RH (eds) (2002) Aldo van Eyck: the playgrounds and
the city. NAi, Rotterdam
Lefebvre H (1991) The Production of Space. Blackwell, Cambridge
Lerner J (2003) Acupuntura Urbana. Editora Record, Rio de Janeiro
Maciocco G (2005) Modelli, tecniche e poetiche del computer. In: Cecchini A,
Plaisant A (eds) Analisi e modelli per la pianificazione: teoria e pratica: lo
stato dell’arte. FrancoAngeli, Milano
Maciocco G, Pittaluga P (eds) (2001) La città latente. Il progetto ambientale in
aree di bordo. FrancoAngeli, Milano
Maciocco G, Tagliagambe S (2009) People and space: new forms of interaction
in the city project. Springer, Berlin
McFarlane C (2012) Rethinking informality: politics, crisis, and the city. Plan
Theory Pract 13(1):89–108
McFarlane C, Waibel M (eds) (2016) Urban informalities: reflections on the
formal and informal. Routledge, London
Mehrotra R (2003) Static spaces, kinetic places. Public Space in the Mega City
of Bombay. Cities and Market Conference, IFHP World Congress Vienna,
5–8 October 2003, Vienna
Mehrotra R (2008) Between sanctioned and shadow order. In: Ruby I, Ruby A
(eds) Urban trans formation. Ruby Press, Berlin
Mehrotra R (2010) Foreword. In: Hernández F, Kellett P, Allen LK (eds) Rethink-
ing the informal city: critical perspectives from Latin America. Berghahn
books, New York
Nuvolati G (2006) Lo sguardo vagabondo, Il flâneur e la città da Baudelaire ai
postmoderni. Il Mulino, Bologna
Olds K (2001) Practices for ‘Process Geographies’: a view from within and
outside the periphery. Environ Plan D 19:127–136
Ostrom E, Guha-Khasnobis B, Kanbur R (2006) Beyond formality and informal-
ity. In: Ostrom E, Guha-Khasnobis B, Kanbur R (eds) Linking the formal and
informal economy. Oxford University Press, New York
Perulli P (2007) La città. La società europea nello spazio globale. Bruno Mon-
dadori, Milano
Porter L (2011) Informality, the commons and the paradoxes for planning:
concepts and debates for informality and planning. Plan Theory Pract
12(1):115–120
Portes A, Schauffler R (1993) Competing perspectives on the Latin American
informal sector. Popul Dev Rev 19(1):33–60
Roy A (2005) Urban informality: toward an epistemology of planning. J Am
Plan Assoc 71(2):147–158
Roy A (2009a) The 21st-century metropolis: new geographies of theory. Reg
Stud 43(6):819–830
Roy A (2009b) Strangely familiar: planning and the worlds of insurgence and
informality. Plan Theory 8(1):7–11
Roy A (2009c) Why India cannot plan its cities: informality, insurgence and the
idiom of urbanization. Plan Theory 8(1):76–87
Roy A (2011) Slumdog cities: rethinking subaltern urbanism. Int J Urb Reg Res
35(2):223–238
Roy A, Alsayyad N (eds) (2004) Urban informality: transnational perspectives from
the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia. Lexington Books, Lanham
Sadler S (1999) Thesituationist city. MIT Press, Cambridge
Sassen S (1994) The informal economy: between new development and old
regulation. Yale law J 103(8):2289–2304
Sassen S (2001) The city: between topographic representation and spatialized
power projects. Art J 60(2):12–20
Sassen S (2005) Fragmented urban topographies and their underlying inter-
connections. In: Brillembourg A, Feireiss K, Klumpner H (eds) Informal city.
Prestel Publishing, Munich
Lutzoni City Territ Archit (2016) 3:20
Sassen S (2006) Territory, authority, rights: from medieval to global assem-
blages. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Saunders W (ed) (2008) Can designers improve life in non-formal cities? Har-
vard Design Magazine, 28
Tagliagambe S (2008) Lo spazio intermedio. Università Bocconi Editore, Milano
Turner FC (1978) L’abitare autogestito. Jaca Book, Milano
Various Authors (1994) Internazionale Situazionista. Nautilus, Torino
Various Authors (2000) Mutations. Actar, Bordeaux
Page 14 of 14
Various Authors (2016) La Biennale di Venezia. 15ª Mostra Internazionale di
Architettura. Reporting from the front. Marsilio, Venezia
Wirth L (1938) Urbanism as a way of life. Am J Sociol 44(1):1–24
Yiftachel O (2009) Theoretical notes on ‘gray cities’: the coming of urban apart-
heid. Plan Theory 8(1):87–99